The word torture makes a striking headline. But no one should have to hurt, punish or psychologically outmanoeuvre another person to regain their peace.

The healthier idea beneath the headline is simpler: stop giving a damaging conflict unlimited access to your attention.

When a relationship becomes a cycle of provocation, accusation and defence, every reply can open another round. You explain what happened; your explanation is challenged. You correct a rumour; another one appears.

Friends or relatives carry messages and urge you to reconcile.

The more you try to convince everyone, the more the conflict occupies your mind and your day.

Some people call those intermediaries “flying monkeys”—a popular phrase for people who carry messages, spread claims or pressure someone on another person’s behalf.

It is not a clinical term, and a person who intervenes may be misinformed or trying, however clumsily, to help. What matters is the conduct: whether someone repeatedly disregards your boundaries, relays unwanted messages or seeks private information after you have asked them to stop.

This is about behaviour, not a diagnosis

Women can show narcissistic traits, just as men can. But a difficult or self-centred person should not automatically be called a narcissist, and only a qualified professional can diagnose narcissistic personality disorder.

The American Psychiatric Association distinguishes everyday narcissistic traits from a persistent, impairing clinical disorder.

Research also does not support the popular idea that narcissism is simply a “female” or “male” pattern.

A large meta-analysis found a small average difference in some measures of grandiose narcissism, with men scoring somewhat higher; it found no meaningful gender difference in vulnerable narcissism. Those results say nothing conclusive about any individual’s behaviour.

So focus on the pattern you can observe: Does the person respect a clear “no”?

Do conversations keep turning into blame and pressure?

Are others being drawn into the dispute?

You can respond to harmful conduct without trying to diagnose the person responsible.

Disengagement is not a game

There is an important difference between ending a harmful exchange and using silence to punish someone.

A healthy boundary is clear and proportionate: “I’m ending this conversation because it has become disrespectful. I’ll respond to practical matters by email.” Punitive silence, by contrast, is used to frighten, control or force the other person to chase.

Disengagement does not mean pretending nothing happened. It means choosing where you will put your attention. You may decide not to answer accusations sent through friends, not to argue about your private life in a group chat, or not to respond immediately to an insulting message. You can keep communication brief, factual and focused on matters that genuinely need a response.

A boundary might sound like this:

“I’m not discussing our relationship through other people. Please don’t pass messages between us.”

Or:

“I’ll respond to practical matters. I won’t continue conversations that include insults or pressure.”

These sentences do not require the other person to agree. Their purpose is to make your limit understandable—and to guide your own next step.

When other people join the conflict

A friend might say, “She’s hurting; you should hear her side.” A relative might say, “For the family’s sake, just let it go.” Sometimes that advice comes from care or incomplete information. Sometimes repeated intervention becomes another source of pressure.

You do not have to give every intermediary a full account of what happened. You can say, “I know you care, but I’m handling this directly. I’m not asking you to take sides.” Then notice what happens. A person who respects you may step back. Someone who continues to pressure you, relay messages or probe for private details may need less access to you.

Research on survivors’ informal networks finds that family and friends can be vital sources of support, but that their responses are not always experienced as helpful. In a separate area of research, studies of technology-facilitated abuse describe some perpetrators using social networks and other people to extend unwanted contact. That research supports taking persistent harassment seriously; it does not show that every mutual friend or family member is acting on someone’s instructions.

Choose safety over a slogan

“Ignore them” is not a universal solution. In some situations, withdrawing contact can lead to more pressure or harassment. If you are worried about escalation, consider a planned approach: keep a record of unwanted contact, tighten social-media privacy, tell a trusted person what is happening and seek local professional support. If there are threats or stalking, take them seriously and contact appropriate local services.

The purpose of disengagement is not to provoke the other person or prove that you have “won.” It is to reduce the conflict’s control over your time, attention and choices. Sometimes that means no response. Sometimes it means one calm, written boundary. Sometimes it means practical communication continues through a safer channel.

The reel’s apparent lesson is strongest when the word torture is left behind. Your silence is not a weapon. Your boundary is not revenge. Your decision to step away can simply be a decision to stop participating in a pattern that harms you.

You may never persuade every relative, friend or mutual acquaintance to see the situation as you do. You can still choose what you share, what you answer and where your attention goes. That is not a tactic for controlling another person. It is a way of taking responsibility for your own peace.